4 ms·
So they aren't going to endorse either candidate. If I didn't have context about the situation, I'd say it makes sense. However I think that in this flawed two
by benatkin 2y ago
So they aren't going to endorse either candidate.
If I didn't have context about the situation, I'd say it makes sense. However I think that in this flawed two-party situation, there is unfairness on both sides, resulting in some sort of balance, and it's bad that one of the richest people on earth could upset the balance in this way, especially at the last moment.
Article from 2020: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/28/editorial-board-endorsement-joe-biden/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/28/editorial...
- dclowd9901 2y agoYeah, I think you’re missing the point a bit here: the fear of endorsing the “wrong” candidate, as it would lead to loss of profit by the owning company, is what led to the axing of the endorsement. Call it what you want: profit and political strongarming silenced a newspaper.
- benatkin 2y agoYou could have created a top-level comment instead of replying to mine. I don't see how your reply is about my take on it and isn't just your completely different take on the issue.
- CalChris 2y agoIt's just political strongarming. The Washington Post is not profitable.
- dclowd9901 2y agoBezos made the call because he was afraid of Trump canceling lucrative Pentagon AWS contracts. WaPo is a loss leader, AWS is his bread and butter.
- eigart 2y agoIt’s Amazons, Blue origin, AWS profits he’s fearful for, not WaPo.